Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download BBC on-demand programmes via the iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a TV licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Disclosure

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Monday 11 March 2024

TV Licensing and the BBC: A Question of Identity

The BBC goes to great lengths to distance itself from the caustic TV Licensing brand, despite retaining full legal responsibility for administration and enforcement of the TV licence system.

It would appear that the BBC does a fairly good job of hiding its TV Licensing credentials, with barely a day going by without some unfortunate soul, a victim of BBC misinformation, denying the link.

We have previously discussed a BBC policy document, the BBC Brand Communication Guidelines, which unequivocally states: "The TV Licensing brand is separate from the BBC brand. No link between the two brands should be made in customer facing communications, in particular, use of the BBC name and logo."

Stuart Leslie (or rather :stuart-Leslie:) recently used the WhatDoTheyKnow.com platform to seek further information about the relationship between the BBC and TV Licensing.

In its letter of response, the BBC stated the following:

  • "We can confirm that TV Licensing is a trade mark used by the companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system."
  • "The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."
  • "We can confirm that the BBC is data controller in respect of personal data supplied."
  • "TV Licensing's operations are managed by the BBC TV Licensing Management Team - internally known as the Licence Fee Unit (LFU) - which is headed by Shirley Cameron, Director of Revenue and Customer Management."
  • "The BBC TV Licensing Management Team is ultimately responsible for the final approval of mailings."

Of course readers of the TV Licensing Blog will know all this already, as we've regularly mentioned the relationship between the BBC and TV Licensing.

It is useful, for the benefit of all those BBC luvvies and deniers out there, that the BBC has confirmed the situation - that it retains full overall responsibility for all things TV Licensing; that it gives final approval for the threatening and dishonest wording of every TV Licensing threatogram

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Further anti-BBC reading:

Friday 8 March 2024

Beat the Price Hike: Cancel Your TV Licence Today

A TV licence currently costs £159. The cost will increase to £169.50 on 1st April 2024 - and that's no joke.

The only joke is on the many thousands of people who continue to pay for a TV licence that they don't legally need. Perhaps they do it through fear; perhaps through habit; perhaps through ignorance of the rules - whatever the reason, there has never been a better time for people to ditch the TV licence and adopt one of the many legally-licence-free methods of viewing. That money is far better in your pocket than lining the pocket of the gluttonous BBC.

A reminder of the rules:

A TV licence is only legally required for those properties where equipment is used to watch or record TV programmes, on any TV channel, at their time of broadcast. A TV licence is also needed to watch or download on-demand programmes provided by the BBC (e.g. those on the BBC iPlayer).

This means a TV licence is legally required for things like:

  • Watching Match Of The Day "live" on BBC One;
  • Watching Football Focus on-demand on the BBC iPlayer;
  • Recording Coronation Street to watch it later on;
  • Watching the Sky News channel "live" on YouTube;
  • Watching the horse racing "live" on ITVX;
  • Recording Naked Attraction to watch it later on... when the wife is out.
However, a TV licence is not legally required for things like:
  • Watching Coronation Street on-demand on ITVX;
  • Watching Naked Attraction on-demand on Channel 4's website or app;
  • Watching football highlights that have been uploaded to YouTube;
  • Watching The Yorkshire Vet on Channel 5's website or app;
  • Watching BBC documentaries that have been uploaded to YouTube;
  • Watching Sky News reports that have been uploaded to YouTube.

Also note that a TV licence is not legally required to listen to radio stations - that's even if you're using a television set to do so (read more). A TV licence is not legally required to watch S4C on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer.

You can also enjoy your favourite pre-recorded DVDs (aff. link) and Blu-rays (aff. link) without a TV licence. You do not legally need a TV licence to use your television set as a monitor to play video games (aff. link) or watch CCTV images.

In our opinion, given the wealth of on-demand material available from non-BBC channels and YouTube, virtually everyone could adopt a lifestyle where they had no legal need for a TV licence.

How to cancel your TV licence:

We have previously written about the process of cancelling a TV licence. It is not as straightforward as it should be, particularly if you pay by Direct Debit. If you do not cancel in the correct way, there is a chance TV Licensing could pursue you under the misapprehension that you still need a TV licence.

Please refer to our earlier TV licence cancellation article for more information.

When you cancel, TV Licensing might ask you to make a No Licence Needed declaration. Despite TV Licensing's insistence and pretence to the contrary, there is no legal requirement for you to submit to this process. We would strongly discourage you from making such a declaration.

Please refer to our earlier No Licence Needed declaration article for more information.

Once cancelled:

Put your feet up, relax and enjoy your new legally-licence-free methods of viewing.

Remember that as a non-TV Licensing customer, you do not owe TV Licensing anything at all. Your home is your castle. It doesn't matter how much TV Licensing huffs and puffs, it's not going to blow it down - just as long as you get yourself genned up.

We strongly encourage you to ignore TV Licensing completely.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Thursday 7 March 2024

Guardian Readers Respond to TV Licensing Exposé

Guardian readers have responded to Zoe Williams' recent exposé of the TV licence fee scandal.

The TV Licensing Blog contributed towards Zoe's article.

Below we reproduce reader comments and add a few of our own:

====

Regarding Zoe Williams' article, I still pay my licence fee despite not watching any live TV. I watch videos of all sorts on YouTube and livestreams several times a week on Twitch, and listen to music, often from internet radio stations with subscriptions. I refuse to leave myself open to the risk of prosecution for non-payment of a stealth tax that should either be rolled into ordinary taxation or made into an optional subscription. To prosecute someone for not paying £159 when those at the top are squirrelling away millions in offshore tax havens is the height of unfairness.

Paula Williams

Bar Hill, Cambridgeshire

TV Licensing Blog comment: This is a damning indictment of the way TV Licensing does business - coercing legitimate non-viewers into paying for a TV licence they don't legally need.

====

In the 1950s, there was only one thing you could do with a television set, so there was a valid argument for everybody who possessed one paying for our only broadcaster via a licence. But it's not the 1950s any more. Now we have many more sources of TV material, and not all of them from broadcasters. So it no longer makes sense for one broadcaster to be paid by everyone regardless of whether they watch its programmes. It's not even clear what a "public service" broadcaster actually is any more, and I'm fairly sure the public have never been asked if they want one.

I can't think of anything the BBC does nowadays that isn't done at least as well, if not better, by others. And there are plenty of alternative payment methods that would be fairer than the BBC continuing to be paid more than £3bn every year regardless of what it does.

Roderick Stewart

Liverpool

TV Licensing Blog comment: As Roderick has identified, the TV licence is an outdated throwback to a bygone era when there was only one television service - that provided by the BBC. Nowadays, with hundreds of non-BBC channels available at the push of a button, it is peverse that people are coerced, on threat of criminal conviction, into paying for a BBC service they might not use and probably don't want.

It is the TV Licensing Blog's position that if the BBC's creative output is as good as it seems to think it is, it should have no problem in adopting a subscription funding model instead. In reality, despite regularly declaring its editorial brilliance and value for money, the BBC knows, deep down, that people simply wouldn't pay if given the choice. That's why it will continue fighting to the death in support of the TV licence fee.

====

Zoe Williams' article was shocking - the prosecutions appear to be a bit of a moneymaking machine for the BBC. However, it should be pointed out that the single justice procedure (SJP) is only used for those who plead guilty or those who do not respond to the initial notice within 21 days. If the person receiving the notice pleads not guilty, their case will be transferred out of the SJP process, and listed for an in-person court hearing with a prosecutor and, if the defendant so wishes, a defence lawyer. One assumes that those being prosecuted are told this.

Dr Dolf A. Mogendorff

Leeds

TV Licensing Blog comment: Dr Mogendorff is absolutely correct that anyone receiving a SJP notice can either plead guilty and elect a sentencing hearing, or deny the offence and require a trial hearing. However, attending court is probably not as straightforward as he seems to think. TV licence cases are now dealt with at regional hubs, which may well mean a court hearing many miles away from the defendant's home. As TV licence evasion is a summary, non-imprisonable offence it is ineligible for legal aid funding. This means defendants would need to pay privately for legal representation, which may well cost far in excess of any penalty that might be imposed were they to be convicted.

====

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.